What happened to the Blawg?

Just to let everyone know, I've left the law school community for now, and the blawg is going dark for a bit. I'll leave it up, of course, but as the last month may have clued you in, there won't be much in the way of updates. Best of luck to all of you!

Chaffin v. Brame

Chaffin v. Brame
233 N.C. 377, 64 S.E.2d 276 (1951)

Facts: Plaintiff was driving on a highway when defendant approached from the opposite direction. Defendant refused to dim his lights, temporarily blinding plaintiff; plaintiff then ran into an unlit truck that had been blocking the whole right lane.

Procedure: Trial found for the plaintiff; defendant appeals.

Issue: Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?

Holding: No.

Reasoning: Since he was blinded by the lights and reacted reasonably by slowing down, the whole don't-drive-faster-than-your-lights doctrine doesn't apply.

Marshall v. Southern Railway Co.

Marshall v. Southern Railway Co.
233 N.C. 38, 62 S.E.2d 489 (1950)

Facts: Defendant's train tracks had supports by a road; plaintiff ran into them because he was distracted by another driver's brights.

Procedure: Trial judge sustained defendant's motion for nonsuit.

Issue: Was there a suit?

Holding: No.

Reasoning: Plaintiff failed to exercise due care as a driver.

Torts

Contacts

Torts

Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.

Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

770 S.W.2d 416 (1989)

Facts: Oi... the companies did the same old rigamarole of ignoring each other's forms.  Brown sold a machine to Hercules using this amazing process.  A Hercules employee sued Brown for injuries sustained working at the machine in Hercules' plant.  Case turns on which form was the contract or held the controlling terms, since that would indicate who could be held liable.  Brown settled the case and then sued Hercules, saying that Hercules should have been liable by the "contract."

Procedure: Trial court found for Brown; Hercules appeals.

Issue: Did Brown's acknowledgment containing the indemnity provision constitute a counter offer, of an acceptance of Hercules' offer with additional/different terms?

Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: Brown's machine order acknowledgment is not a counter offer, so it must be an acceptance with different terms.  Since Hercules' purchase order specifically limited it to the stated terms, Brown's terms fall into the abyss.